About your Search

20121006
20121014
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
proven that they foster or canned dealing in a diverse environment. that is how i understood their plan. it is not because of race. it is combining that with other factors. >> there is a plus because of race. there are many other factors. the white student president of the class in an ethnically different school is a measure of leadership. leadership is an independent factor. he is not getting that point because of his race. he is getting that point because of his leadership. that is race-neutral criteria that could work for anybody. race is an independent and-on -- add-on. they say they could contextualized. it is not narrowly tailored and it gives mistreatment to asian americans because they are minorities as well. if it depends on the question factor, there is no way to fit with they are doing to the solution of the problem, which may use as a major foundation of their proposal, which is the non-diverse class compared cementum there's no correspondence there. i see my time is up >> we will afford you rebuttal time. mr. garre. >> thank you. for two reasons, it is held under this court
regulatory environment, as bank took a look at his business plan and said here is your problem -- you are asset rich and cash poor. he said i know that, if i had the cash it would not be here for a loan. he would have to over collateralize a loan by 150% under the current regulatory environment. i want him to be able to grow his business. it's a classic example of regulation killing jobs. we need to make sure we have the proper amount of legislation but not overregulation. my commercials talk about reducing spending, and powering our work force for training for jobs available and developing a comprehensive energy policy to put our people back to work, energy independence to protect our environment. >> 30 seconds to rebut. >> you have been running some of the most deceitful attack at the state has ever seen. don't try to pretend that has not been what's happening in that race. when your campaign was asked why you don't start talking about the issues, your campaign manager said it would be a senseless exercise. that's right. for linda mcmahon talking at the issues of be a senseless exer
you reconcile that with your voting record? >> i have a very strong record on the environment in the united states senate. [laughter] i have a record where i voted for the superfund legislation. i have a record where i voted against my president on the override of the clean water act. i have voted for the major pieces of environmental legislation that have come down and been voted on in the united states senate. this administration and i support this administration and its environmental efforts has moved in the area for the first time to deal with the ozone problem. we now have an international treaty, the treaty that is commonly referred to as the montreal treaty. for the first time we are talking about the impact of co2 to the ozone layer. that's progress with the environment. we are committed to the environment. i take my children hiking and fishing, walking in the woods, in the wilderness. believe me, we have a commit to preserving the environment. you bring up the environment, you can't help but think about the environmental policy of the governor of massachusetts. he tal
environment. you can spread by around but let's face it, in the negotiations over the past year or so, the single biggest obstacle -- optical has been republican on willingness to move significantly on taxes. if they moved on taxes, i think democrats, a number of them including the president, will move on spending and we can have a primary agreement and the lame duck session. if not, i think we go into january. what happens if we do? think of 1995. we have a government shut down. newt gingrich/bill clinton -- once the government shut down, the pressure on both sides was so intense. the pressure if we go into january will be far greater because the economic consequences and the market consequences are more significant. i think it is inconceivable that if we go into january, there won't be a solution in january or early february at the latest. there has to be a settlement, somebody will have to blink, probably both sides. i talk a little bit to people in financial markets in the york. i would think the market would react to all of this. if there is a deal in a few weeks and any deal cle
need. what we need is for the federal government to establish and create an environment where the private sector can flourish. >> talking about earmarks is exactly the kind of craziness we do not need any more. earmarked -- $16 trillion debt. earmarked account for 1/2 of 1% of the federal budget. we are better off, but talking about that is like talking about a drop of water in the ocean. the government does not create jobs. the private sector creates jobs. if you one example, take a look at texas. the people in texas are close to the people in arizona. why and there -- is their economy doing so fantastic? they are consistently ranked as one of the top state friendly to business. what does that mean? they mean lower taxes, low regulation. and not worry about government trading infrastructure. all the government has to do is get out of the way and let the free market to its thing. >> you have been criticized for not bringing home the bacon, not doing enough to get federal money into arizona. how do you respond? >> most of the earmarks, in the transportation bill. that had 6300
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)